3 ms·
i'd say it's a lot more likely it was killed because of the political slant. very few political articles are allowed to live around here, because they lead to
by allenbrunson 17y ago
i'd say it's a lot more likely it was killed because of the political slant. very few political articles are allowed to live around here, because they lead to divisive and unproductive arguments.
- occam 17y agoWhat is the political slant of that article?
- tokenadult 17y agoFrom the guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Stories about politics have a very high threshold to clear to be on HN, because there are many other places to discuss politics online, and few others to discuss the core HN topics.
- occam 17y agoYes. But the article is question doesn't seem to be about politics: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/medias-bias-toward-english-speaking.html http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/07/medias-bias-toward-englis...
- tokenadult 17y agoI suppose reasonable minds can differ, but it doesn't delight my mind. I should be deeply interested in such an article, as an American who reads a foreign language (Chinese) and has lived abroad, but maybe precisely because I have that background I've seen better.
- occam 17y agoOf course you don't have to vote it up. But why was it killed?
- tokenadult 17y agoI gave that answer up-thread. I think people interpreted it as a political post. (Personally, I had nothing to do with flagging that thread. I didn't even notice it until it was dead and the metadiscussion began.)
- occam 17y agoAllen, everything from that domain is autokilled. Try it yourself. Here's one you can submit: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/01/reasons-for-being-cheerful.html http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/01/reasons-for-being-cheerfu...